Help support Chacruna’s team by being a sponsor

Chacruna.net is a hub for producing and disseminating high-quality multimedia content about plant medicines and psychedelics, facilitating access to these resources online. The website’s central objective is to offer content created and curated by leading experts in the field, edited to a wider audience. The field of psychedelics is filled with misinformation, anecdotal narratives, poorly trained professionals and enthusiasts with no field experience, leading discussions with large audiences of novices to the subject.

1. What are women’s historical contributions to the field
of psychedelic science?

Some husbands confessed to me later that they were scared and wanted to experience something with the person they trusted most.

In my research into 1950s experiments, women were central,
but often invisible, contributors. A large number, maybe a majority, of
early experimenters had their first experiences with their wives. Some husbands confessed to me later
that they were scared and wanted to experience something with the person they
trusted most. Wives helped them write up their experiential reports, and
often sat with other volunteers in subsequent sessions as experienced sitters
or guides, even before that terminology became more commonplace. In my
research, however, none of these wives ever appeared on a published paper or
report, and some were not even identified by name. Mrs. Al Hubbard, for example, seemed to have sat in on at
least as many sessions (maybe more), but her first name is not even recorded,
yet Captain Al Hubbard became infamous for his role in this history. Maria
Huxley, Aldous’ first wife, was a major influence on him, and pushed Aldous to
more deeply explore parapsychology and Indigenous rituals, largely through her
own network of women.

Male assessment at the Saskatchewan Mental Hospital, Weyburn, in 1953, with superintendent Humphry Osmond in glasses seated on the left corner of the table. Photograph courtesy of Michael Kesterton.

2. Can you tell something more about those “wives”
who were so critical to that early research?

It is probably
difficult today to fully appreciate what it might have been like to live as the
wife of one of the early psychedelic enthusiasts. The 1950s are not held
up as a moment of progressiveness for women in the workplace or for finding (or
being discovered for) their public voices; it seemed that the 1960s generation
overshadowed any such strides that 1950s women might have presented. But,
imagine a time when a single-family income was more the norm, and where the family
income was indeed that. There seemed to be a sense of partnership and shared
responsibility for the husband’s success; in this case, his research. I
don’t want to romanticize or overshadow some of the obvious pitfalls with this
logic, but I think it is important for considering how men like Aldous Huxley,
Al Hubbard, Humphry Osmond, and others relied on their wives for providing
absolutely critical feedback on their work, almost as an expectation. This too
is not to cast these men as monsters, but it is an attempt to contextualize the
husband-wife partnership in the 1950s, and especially in a moment where these
men felt quite vulnerable. It also, I think, helps us to recognize the
vital contributions that women have been making to this field for a long time.

Each of these men had their first “psychedelic” experience with their wife. Each later confessed to being nervous and apprehensive, but calmed by the presence of their loving partners.

Each of these men had their first “psychedelic” experience
with their wife. Each later confessed to being nervous and apprehensive, but
calmed by the presence of their loving partners. Some of these women later recorded their own
feelings too. Rose Hoffer (Abram Hoffer’s wife) remembered mostly feeling sick
and worried that this would ruin the experiment, when it turned out that
several other people had also felt nauseous, but were uncomfortable admitting
it. Ellen (Matthew Huxley’s wife, son of Aldous Huxley), coaxed her
husband through a difficult first experience, and later took a real interest in
recording their subsequent reflections about that moment as a way to catalogue
the insights they gained. Indeed, it was she who kept up the correspondence.
Mary Agnew, wife of psychologist Neil Agnew, remembers agreeing to try LSD with
her husband to ease him into the experience, and how he invited her to then
help to guide subsequent students and volunteers in his lab after that day. He
told me (in his 90s) that she was the best guide there was.

I am only
speculating, but it strikes me that these women may have been instrumental in
helping their husbands feel more confident about their work. Some clearly helped to articulate
the experience, lending credibility to the vocabulary of the description and
helping to create new frameworks for understanding as they talked with each
other and formed their own networks of support for one another, as well as for
the men. Today, we might call this emotional labor, yet we still
struggle with how to evaluate it.

3. How would the field of psychedelic science be impacted
if there were more women?

My historical research suggests that women were almost always involved in the counseling sessions, recruitment, etc., but are very rarely identified in the published work

First, everything would be better if there was more
diversity of experience and understanding. Psychedelics, like other
historical examples of medical experimentation, were, and still are to a large
extent, dominated by men, and, I think, this also lends itself to a culture of
bravado, machismo, or a style of confidence in assertions that we don’t
necessarily see from the women who are routinely involved in the experiments,
or in the counseling sessions, though rarely as PIs. My historical research suggests that
women were almost always involved in the counseling sessions, recruitment,
etc., but are very rarely identified in the published work. The
legacy of that history continues to distort our understanding of who does the
work, and what kind of work is valued.

4. What is the structure of the majority of psychedelic
research institutions and non-profits? Are they composed of men or women? What
about their boards?

In Canada, our Minister of Science, Kristy Duncan, recently
scolded post-secondary institutions for the lack of diversity in research
chairs. She insisted that universities make up at least 30% of
major-funded research chairs with either women, people with disabilities, or
visible minorities. My major university had 17% diversity, according to
this criteria. We all need to do better. I am not convinced that being a White
male makes one more capable of original and innovative research. I am convinced
that being White and male has had historical privileges associated with it that
are now assumed rather than assessed.

5. How does women’s history of oppression inform their
approach to psychedelic science?

It took a lot of courage to go into an LSD trial, especially in an era where most psychiatry and psychotherapy was done without any psychoactive substances at all.

Historically, women were first legally prohibited, and
then culturally excluded, from public drinking establishments. This led to
a serious distortion in the number of cases of women diagnosed with alcoholism
who entered the 1950s generation of psychedelic trials for alcoholism. It was
not that women weren’t there, but they received different kinds of therapy and
were more often treated for depression or anxiety than for alcoholism. At
that time, some of the conventional wisdom suggested that psychedelics offered
an appropriate male therapy
because it was potentially scary or even destabilizing. Practitioners
even suggested that this was better suited for men who were attracted to bars
where they could fight each other, and seduce women. It took a lot of courage to go into an LSD
trial, especially in an era where most psychiatry and psychotherapy was done without
any psychoactive substances at all.

Despite the outcomes, and the acknowledgment that this
perspective was overblown, much
of the early research concentrated on an ethos of bravery or a daring spirit
that was explicitly designed to target men.

Painting of Maria by her husband, Aldous Huxley. Undated. Open source.

6. Your new book talks about letters between Huxley
and Osmond, two men. How do women figure there?

It is true that this book falls into the trap of celebrating the male pioneers of psychedelics, but I am proud to say that the editorial team was also quite conscientious about capturing the additional letters, where possible, or notes, in some cases, written by the women in their lives

Yes – Psychedelic Prophets is a critical edition of the complete letters of correspondence between writer Aldous Huxley and psychiatrist Humphry Osmond; the two men who coined the word “psychedelic”. It is true that this book falls into the trap of celebrating the male pioneers of psychedelics, but I am proud to say that the editorial team was also quite conscientious about capturing the additional letters, where possible, or notes, in some cases, written by the women in their lives. Their wives—Jane Osmond, Maria Huxley and later Laura Huxley; Osmond’s young daughters (Euphemia and Helen), and Aldous’ daughter-in-law (Ellen): All of these women not only appear in references, but are woven into the lives of these men as they write about their research, but also of their families. Indeed, I hope that these letters might give us a glimpse into that historical moment, a mixture of curiosity and trepidation about what psychedelics might do for humanity. Some of that trepidation comes through in how they talk to the wise women in their lives, wives as well as others, like parapsychologist Eileen Garret, who features prominently in their letters. Despite the published names, they demonstrated a kind of deference and respect to their wives as confidantes and wise women who played an instrumental role in their work. I hope that will come across to readers too.

7. Where do you see the future of psychedelic science
headed? Or where would you like to see it headed towards?

As a historian, I suppose it is cliché to say that I hope we learn from our past; but in this case, I think some of the lessons are clear. The lack of diversity in science is not just a problem for those of us interested in psychedelics, but in some ways, the stakes might be even higher. Many of the guiding principles behind psychedelic therapy embrace subjectivity, and encourage us to tolerate diversity of expression and experience. We need to then lead by example as a community of researchers who can bring this philosophy into practice as we train, research, and disseminate our findings with diversity in mind. We know that things like emotional labor are a critical part of this enterprise, and that binaries are indeed more fluid, and that the way we do or don’t feel secure in a space has a significant impact on how we experience mental health. I guess that means I would like to see members of the psychedelic science community champion these values and help set an example of how mental health care can be done.

Help support Chacruna's team by being a sponsor

Chacruna.net is a hub for producing and disseminating high-quality multimedia content about plant medicines and psychedelics, facilitating access to these resources online. The website's central objective is to offer content created and curated by leading experts in the field, edited to a wider audience. The field of psychedelics is filled with misinformation, anecdotal narratives, poorly trained professionals and enthusiasts with no field experience, leading discussions with large audiences of novices to the subject.